If Obama’s lips are moving, you can bet the farm he is lying. Same for Gore, but at least he isn’t also violating his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution at every conceivable opportunity.

I’m not clear why the two statements are in conflict. Even if we don’t attribute individual weather events to “global warming,” it would still be true that storms such as Sandy are a “disturbing sign” of what would happen more frequently if the world does in fact get warmer. Perhaps I am missing the point, or my dog whistle ears are not sensitive enough to hear the implied message. Can someone spell it out for me?

I believe both. It was a disturbing sign of what will happen to the sandbanks people built their houses on the next time they’ll be washed over. And I believe Obama – no, hasn’t anything to do with Global Warming (hasn’t warmed the last 17 years so how could it).

Actually, Al may be right as the planet returns to it’s normal, cyclical weather patterns. Less wind shear where the tropical cyclones form (i.e. a return to the temps of the 1960’s and 1970’s) will bring the Hurricanes that people who remember those decades. And the mantra during those decades wasn’t global warming even though real hurricanes were actually making landfall on Long Island, not tropical storms).

That’s a tough question. If Global Average Surface Temperature were to rise 8 to 10 C, then I have no doubt that weather patterns would be affected and individual storms could become more intense.. The real question is: does a rise in Global Average Surface Temperature from 288K to 288.8K make any discernible difference in storm intensity? I’ve not seen any evidence to suggest it does. Gore’s quote is clearly wrong. If Obama’s quote were, “we can’t attribute any *recent* weather event to global warming”, then I would agree with that. But if significant global warning were to happen (I don’t think it will), then I think we could attribute weather events to global warming.

Logicially, it’s possible to answer “both,” i.e., a storm could be a “sign of things to come” even if, as one event, it’s not “attibutable to global warming.” It is perfectly logical to answer “neither,” though I suspect it would be a lonely position indeed. Both the poll and, especially, the billboard, commit the fallacy of the false dilemma.

Those who understand climate science, so-called, know that there’s no evidence that the extra CO2 has done anything (except green up the plant-world). So, even though Mr. Obama is correct, it’s by accident only. We credit him on that by way of our prior knowledge, not by belief in his insight.

How, on earth, does one answer this question? I mean, c’mon. It’s torture to even contemplate an answer to this question. It’s a little like asking someone, “What would you rather drive, an Edsel down the autobahn, or a Lamborghini down a Chicago expressway during rush hour?” Try answering that.

Neither. One was uttered in the recite-the-meme-mindset of Al Gore, The other during a re-election campaign. Given the about face, it’s lies, lies, lies, despite the factual truth of Obummer’s utterance.

I’m not sure if this is possible, but if it is, you might want to edit in “both” as an option. Obama’s perfectly right, no one event can be entirely attributed to global warming–but Gore is also correct, as on a warmer planet severe storms like Hurricane Sandy would be expected to occur more often. The two options are presented as mutually exclusive, but they really aren’t. If Gore had outright said “Hurricane Sandy was caused by global warming,” Yes, there would be a contradiction (and Gore would have been wrong)–but all he said was that more storms like Sandy should be expected in the future.

If Obama had admitted that Sandy was in some measure caused by AGW, he would have implicated himself and his own failure to combat so-called “climate change” during this first term. So he lied to keep the alarmist eco-loons at bay. Now, of course, he’s leading the charge, via regulatory fiat, to shut down coal-fired plants across the country ostensibly to stave off an impending CO2-induced global meltdown, a grand fantasy perpetuated by his politically attuned servants at NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS.

By now, it should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that His Majesty Obama is a pathological liar.

I did not vote for algore on the billboard question
I did not vote for algore when he ran for president
I did not vote for obama on the billboard question
I did not vote for obama the first time he ran for president
I did not vote for obama the second time he ran for president
I will not vote for obama the third time he runs for president

Just goes to show that President Obama is not a push over and he doesn’t think the American citizens are a push over either! I wonder what kind of donation Cfact.org had to make to get the billboard put up; any estimates out there? Where exactly was the billboard installed? That would make a big difference in my guesstimate of the “donation”. Was the photo an off the record “drone” photo?

Nerd says:
February 9, 2013 at 10:08 am
Obama would say anything to get votes. Now that he won the election, he’s going to “evolve” and say that it’s our fault for global warming.
———-
I don’t like Obama’s politics either but look at the date he said it. It’s on the billboard.
cn

Joe says:
February 9, 2013 at 10:11 am
In the context of the billboard there’s not contest – the guy on the right who’s on the left (as opposed to the guy on the left who seems to be on drugs)
———-
Now that made me lol.
Thanks
cn

john robertson says:
February 9, 2013 at 10:17 am
I hate it when a serial liar says something thats true.
But a damn fine billboard as it pits the true believers against themselves, Al Gore the gift that keeps on giving.
———————–
Looks like they’re willing to give up Al Gore and CAGW for us to say we believe in Obama.
Couldn’t do it.
I said neither.
cn

Of all of the things skeptics can put on billboards – a graph of global temperature, dissenting quotes from highly esteemed scientists, etc. – why on Earth would they put up these quotes from obama and gore?

As we have seen, Obama is a psychopathic lying prodigy. Everything Obama says is a component of larger, more elaborate and complex system of lies; stacked like Halloween treats for the evil one, who is Obama’s father and greatest mentor.

@JazzyT: yep – false dilemma. Voting on semantics.
Here, Gore is right because Sandy-type events have happened numerous times before and will occur again. Obama is right also. Either one or both can be deemed correct in this instance, and can equally be deemed unbelievable. If, on reflection, you think you made the wrong choice, just vote again :-)

Why does anyone think either of their statements have a reasonably significant basis from an objective scientific method?

If they make some statement about climate science using an invalid scientific process, and even if their statement is shown to agree with the findings of an objectively valid scientific process then their statement still is not a scientifically valid statement.

Scientifically, the method / process used to arrive at some statement is the essence of the validity of the statement itself.

Clearly, based on their historical narratives on climate, neither Gore nor Obama used a reasonably objective and balanced climate science process. I have zero evidence they have fundamentally shifted their long standing and well known alarming AGW belief. So, I find this WUWT survey about the validity of their statements is not a viable one.

In this case, both are correct. The increasing level of energy in the system is creating more frequent unusual weather events, and Sandy had more energy because the ocean was warmer than normal. In that sense, Sandy being as powerful as it was is compatible with AGW, and we can expect more events like that as the energy continues to build up. At the same time, there is never a uniform distribution of energy in the system; unusual events have always happened. In isolation, you can’t make anything out of a single event. However, since we are seeing an increase in the rate of unusual events globally, it would be incorrect to pretend that every event was the only event happening.

Actually I don’t believe either one, but both statements are correct. All major storms are disturbing, and of course there will be more of them. There always have been. With inflation, each major storm has the potential of costing more than the last one.

I see from the vote tally that 60% of respondents believe neither Obama nor Gore, 40% give Obama the benefit of the doubt and less than 1 % believe Al Gore. Sounds about right to me. A pretty good poster.

Voicing my agreement with those who express distrust regardless of the fact that President Obama happens to be occupying a factually correct position in that instant snapshot. Why is it that the only politicians I think are basically honest come across as complete nut cases (yes I’m referring to Ron Paul)? It’s indicative of something terribly sad and wrong, although I can’t put my finger on exactly what…

“In the Netherlands, politicians are the most experienced lyers in the country; how are they in the USA?”
Likewise with our politicians, however they are not the best liars, as Douglas Addams said “The purpose of the office of the President is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it.” or something very close that, so of course the best liars are those we don’t know are lying.

Wow. Based on the poll, the correct answer is “neither one.” So not attributing any particular weather event to climate change is a false statement, and so is attributing a weather event to climate change. Now I’m confused.

Sadly, al-Gore’s statement is correct in the sense that people have failed to prepare for even relatively mild storms. They’ve built neighborhoods on flood plains and stopped building flood control and water supply dams. Sandy IS a sign of “things to come” in the sense that humanity seems to have forgotten the kinds of storms that were more common even during the 20th century. Unfortunately the believers are under the impression that “things to come” refers to weather events, not the folly of modern civilization.

0bama was simply parroting what someone wrote for him to say, however his statement is also accurate. We CAN’T attribute any single event to “global warming”, for the simple fact that it’s not possible to compare the event to how it would be without any human factors.

History shows that storms are more extreme where temperature differentials are greater, ie a COOLER planet.

I didn’t vote because I refuse to answer whether I still beat my wife.

The President and “neither” were correct in their own way…..Goracle shafted.
Warmers tried it on yesterday with blaming warm sea off the NE coast of the States for the
blizzard….however Bob Tidsdale came up with a graph going back to 1854….no change
In temps….haha.

On an OT, but slightly related topic, in that it deals with the perception of ostensible authority, here’s a short quiz that asks you to identify from photos alone whether the individual is a college professor or a hobo. I missed a couple.

Below is the “billboard” Obama quote in context, given in response to a question by New York Times reporter Mark Landler at Obama’s recent post-election press conference:

“You know, as you know, Mark, we can’t attribute any particular weather event to climate change. What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago. We do know that the Arctic ice cap is melting faster than was predicted even five years ago. We do know that there have been extraordinarily — there have been an extraordinarily large number of severe weather events here in North America, but also around the globe.

“And I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions. And as a consequence, I think we’ve got an obligation to future generations to do something about it.”

I am cutting CFACT a little slack on their Bill Board, after seeing how they made fools out of UN delegates at Qatar COP 18:
“At COP 18 in Doha, Qatar, CFACT asked the delegates to the UN Climate Change Conference if they would be willing to wear a carbon capture mask that filters out the carbon dioxide (CO2) they exhale. You’d be surprised how many agreed to this ridiculous proposal. If the UN delegates are open to this, just think what they’d like to impose on the rest of the world!”

The question “who do you believe?” is moot. I’m puzzled as to why they ask it. I believe they meant which one is correct, and in this case it’s Obama, so that is who I voted for. So what? He’s wrong on most other things he says about climate and energy policy.

They both lie. Gore is blatant. Obama uses his typical expertise of the English language. The key words are “particular” and “global warming”. He’s not denying AGW in that statement, and could be (and probably is) attributing all weather events to global warming.

Chris G says:“since we are seeing an increase in the rate of unusual events globally”

Do you have any evidence of that? Ever hear of the dust bowl, Johnstown flood, Great Hurricane of the Antilles, The Great Galveston Hurricane, or Hurricane Hazel? How do you think tornado alley got its name back in 1952, lack of tornadoes?

@ Kindlekinser & Sam Yates (et. al.)

I’m afraid you’ve fallen victim to the manufactured urban legend that warmer = stormier. Temperature gradients are much more influential in storminess than the absolute temperature and since an enhanced greenhouse effect if influential at all would necessarily reduce temperature gradients thereby reducing the likelihood of storms like Sandy.

Kindlekinser says…”Even if we don’t attribute individual weather events to “global warming,” it would still be true that storms such as Sandy are a “disturbing sign” of what would happen more frequently if the world does in fact get warmer.”

WRONG. Storms are caused by differing temperatures between the equator and the poles. Since it is only the poles,and most noticably the North Pole that is warming,less temp diff means milder,weaker storms. Basic Gr 7 physics. Of course,there is a lot more variables,but this is the main one.

I still can’t get a date, not even ballpark, for when the climate was stable/normal/non-extreme. Any ideas, anybody? I’m so disappointed when I’m told that such-and-such an event is the worst or most extreme in a hundred years. Being a redneck doofus, I assume that means we’ll have to wind the clock back further than a hundred years to return to the good old stable times.

A hundred years ago in my region of Oz we were setting monthly heat and drought records which still stand. If I roll back over 150 years, the Darling River had stopped flowing. If I roll back over 200 years, there was that horror El Nino of the early 1790s. (It was like this year’s heatwave but not relieved by rain after a mere few days. It went on and bloody on.)

Help! I have ordered my Time Machine but don’t know what year to set it for!

I’m sure Obama’s views on the subject are “evolving.” Just give him time (and a new crisis to exploit) and his opinion will change. It wasn’t that long ago that Senator Obama insisted that deficit spending was unpatriotic. Today he insists that putting any kind of reduction on deficit spending is unpatriotic. His flip-flop, I mean evolution, was merely 180 degrees. I can assure you that the next time a Republican is president, his views on deficit spending will evolve another 180 degrees making his evolution a complete revolution. But his worshipers and the media (sorry for the redundancy) will see absolutely nothing wrong with that or with any of his other evolving positions.

Given that politics is the art of lying, one begins from a standpoint that anything said is either a bald faced lie, or in the event of it being factually accurate, is being used to conceal a deeper more malignant lie. Equally, politics is about what is not said.

The question is misstated: It should read, “Whom do you believe?” I believe neither one, and so I voted. As to the alternate question, “Which of the above statements is true?” I would have voted for the one that Obama spoke (albeit likely without believing it, or only believing it when convenient).

“Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.” (Jan 20. 2013, Second Inaugural Address)

The reason for the shift – or shiftlessness – of Obama’s outlook has everything to do with finding the money to pay for his neverending list of entitlement programs, so that when the most visible “entitlement” of all comes along – natural disaster relief – there must be visible backpeddling from the tiresome attribution of every weather event to global warming. Rhetoric to stem the disaster relief demands from New York and New Jersey constituents is one thing, but inauguration-day pablum is something else. Promise them anything, but give them alarm, and who cares if ever the twain shall meet?

Four years of Obama’s spending have generated a debt burden for the country of $16 trillion – nearly $35,000 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. today – and a legacy guaranteed by the fawning press.

I’m very sorry to read the results of this poll. It is obvious that the Obama quote is incontrovertible, as all “lukewarmers”, skeptics and even “warmists” such as Trenberth or Mooney or others will admit. There is a real problem in the US between politicized actors, right and left-leaning people battling like cats and dogs and accusing each other of promoting their ideology. Science should be ideologically-proof (remember Lyssenko?). Now, I do admit that in the Anglo-Saxon world there is a strong discussion going on, one that is more or less suppressed in our French-speaking Press. But here, we have many left-leaning skeptics (including myself) who are wary of the attitude of the Greens. It is not, repeat not, a battle between left and right-wing ways of thinking. At one time, Left-wing was synonymous to “progress”; with the advent of Green parties, the word was deemed as gross, and our political parties (which in the US are described as “socialist” – as if the social-democrats could be equated with Bolsheviks… Just ask Swedes and Danes and even my good old bow-tie-toting Prime Minister will admit. For you, my dear Americans, Socialist is a S-word. Rest assured that it is not.) had to compete with the Greens to get elected. Science is neither D nor R, it should be Science. It should be something we could agree upon, even though fighting between ourselves (remember the fight between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?).
I rest my case…

A preferrable poll question would be “which statement do you believe,” which might have made it easier vote for the true statement by Obama on the sign. But as the question is worded, I can’t vote, because I swore an oath to myself to never for Obama. ;-)

Dang, I fell for it. I picked Obama as having the right statement, as it pertains to the simple fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas contributing some 0.1C to global temperature, but that has nothing to do with the question.
Thanks for the brain teaser though. Will be sharper next time.

Do you have any evidence of that? Ever hear of the dust bowl, Johnstown flood, Great Hurricane of the Antilles, The Great Galveston Hurricane, or Hurricane Hazel? How do you think tornado alley got its name back in 1952, lack of tornadoes?

There is no way to guess what the author of the billboard’s choice is. I suppose to him it is obvious. Obama may not be saying what he believes and Gore may not be the clown to the author that he is to most looking upon the billboard. Often there is a clue in how the pictures look. Obama looks shifty and Al has been airbrushed sincere with 25 years knocked off. I’ll bite. The advertiser still looks on Al Gorezeera as a hero.

Jimbo says:
February 9, 2013 at 10:25 am
Al Gore
“Hurricane Sany is a disturbing sign of things to come”

Obviously not disturbing enough, so much so that Gore pocket $100 million of dirty, big oil money within the last 2 months? Even Gore doesn’t believe his own nonsense anymore.
*****************************************

I wonder if we could start a campaign to tell people that Gore/CAGW is funded by big oil. At least this time it would be true.

First question to answer is who are Heartland? – A right of centre political thinktank, or essentially a bunch of hired guns paid to forward the interests of multi-national corporations.

Next question – which statement is correct. Both are basing their comments on the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that points to climate change as reality that effects us now and will increasingly do so in future. No Scientific Institution of national standing in the world now disagrees with this postion including the last to concede The American Association of Petrolium Geologists (I’m guessing they’re not a bunch of shrill environmentalists). You can check detaiils here:

Obama is essentially correct that we are unable to definatively state that any single weather event is caused by climate change.

However Gore is also correct. He is not definatively saying that Sandy was caused by climate change but that in future we can expect more extreme storms like Sandy which is entirely in line with Scientific advice.

Hey Möbius, it’s clear you don’t know much about right-wing think-tanks. Such as the corporate nonsense. The left gets more corporate money than the right, and there’s more money in global warming alarmism than skepticism.

But that’s probably too subtle for someone who didn’t even notice that Heartland didn’t make this billboard to understand.

I’ll probably get my head bitten off for that…
Say about President Obama what you want, but stupid he is NOT. So I think he knows well enough that CAGW is bogus, and that is why we have neither carbon cap and trade nor carbon taxes. True, he had to appease his base in his inauguration speech… So, having said that, in that respect, I really do believe him.

Unlike me, I guess you have never known a smoker that did not get lung cancer.
You need the word “can” in there.
Smoking can cause lung cancer.
My mother died of lung cancer. I attribute that to smoking. But, as you say, I have no proof.
The odd thing is that until a smoker dies at an advanced age of something totally unrelated to cancer, say a smoking centenarian dies after falling off a horse, we can’t be sure.

First of all, I don’t believe Obama really “knows” if what he is saying is true or not, he is merely relying on the opinions of others. Further, he doesn’t want be seen as someone who says “I don’t know the answer”. Finally, millions of people are looking at Obama as their spiritual leader, and leaders of that type have to know everything; otherwise he’ll begin to lose the confidence of those who can’t, won’t, or refuse to think for themselves….

I am not an American. nor a scientist
But I remember what Einstein said and predicted and the value he added to human understanding.
who was the president then ? I have no idea. and who cares what he thought of relativity?
and who was the failure of a president wannabe in 1905 ? who cares

First question to answer is who are Heartland? – A right of centre political thinktank, or essentially a bunch of hired guns paid to forward the interests of multi-national corporations.

Next question – which statement is correct. Both are basing their comments on the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that points to climate change as reality that effects us now and will increasingly do so in future. No Scientific Institution of national standing in the world now disagrees with this postion including the last to concede The American Association of Petrolium Geologists (I’m guessing they’re not a bunch of shrill environmentalists). You can check detaiils here:

Obama is essentially correct that we are unable to definatively state that any single weather event is caused by climate change.

However Gore is also correct. He is not definatively saying that Sandy was caused by climate change but that in future we can expect more extreme storms like Sandy which is entirely in line with Scientific advice.
————————————————-
Mobius Loop,

I ask you to trust me when I say that you aren’t saying anything anybody here hasn’t heard when you refer to an large body of research that claims AGW is real, or that the position of numerous institutions is in agreement with this theory.

I hope that I’m not telling you anything you don’t know by pointing out that it matters not at all if every scientific publication ever conceived by man and every scientific institution that ever existed hold with utter certainty that AGW is real. Scientific fact is not determined by opinion poll, no matter how overwhelming the numbers polled or how prestigious the institutions involved. There are regular posters here who find various parts of the scientific argument not compelling, or the observed evidence to be wanting. I’m certain they’d be delighted to elaborate if you’d care to lay out what you believe the scientific AGW case to be. I know I’d be glad to, if you’d be specific.

Until then, for my part I’m content to note that it requires no invocation of AGW to explain Sandy, and that by any metric I know of hurricanes have NOT been shown to be increasing in number or intensity since the advent of industrialization and increases in atmospheric CO2.

I used to work with a guy whose two stock statements about telling the truth were.
“I always tell the truth……but I also tell lies” and “I always tell the truth…. as I see it”
I think either one of these would fit for the two “gentlemen” in question or “I always tell the truth…. that fits the agenda at the time”
I can’t remember who it was who said that you could tell when a politician was lying. Their lips moved.
James Bull

Of all of the things skeptics can put on billboards – a graph of global temperature, dissenting quotes from highly esteemed scientists, etc. – why on Earth would they put up these quotes from obama and gore?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
Because the American public, especially in Chicago, is brain dead and believes every word a politician says, if the politician is a democrat.

For those who voted for Obama beware of the exact phrase used. He states,’…any particular event…’, that leaves him the option of still being able to claim a trend in weather can be pinned on global warming.
Watch these people, they are slippery.

Obama says one thing… then signs another. I honestly believe either he cant read or he has the most inept staff EVER!!!.. Folks are figuring out Obamacare is nothing like he said it was, why would they believe him now even if he were telling the truth.

Obama’s statement is certainly true, but I imagine his next sentence had an important ‘but’, followed by a string of lies.

Gore’s statement is not just false, it is obvious nonsense. Although Sandy may have been the largest hurricane observed during the satellite era (in terms of diameter), by the time it made landfall it had been downgraded so, strictly speaking, New York wasn’t hit by a hurricane at all last November. The damage was done by the storm surge, not by high winds. If I remember correctly, Willis noted that the sea temperature along Sandy’s path was similar to the sixties. And, of course, there have been a number of similar storms over the last couple of centuries. These storms are bound to happen if you wait long enough. Oh, yes, one more thing: globally the overall intensity of hurricanes has been falling for the last few decades. For Gore that really is an inconvenient truth.

After some modest warming in the last century, we’ve got used to quite benign conditions. Unfortunately this won’t last forever. Many records show that the world becomes more stormy when the world gets colder.
Chris

Chris G says:
February 9, 2013 at 11:47 am
….In this case, both are correct. The increasing level of energy in the system is creating more frequent unusual weather events…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And where is your PROOF?
This is from Chris Landsea a world expert on Hurricanes, IPCC author and believer in Global Warming. However he is also an honest scientist with integrity.

What is Wrong with Embellishing Science?
Yesterday, before heading back to the National Hurricane Center to help deal with Sandy, Chris Landsea gave a great talk here at CU on hurricanes and climate change….he explained that he has no doubts that humans affect the climate system through the emission of greenhouse gases,…. Chris argued that any such influence is expected to be small today, almost certainly undetectable, and that this view is not particularly controversial among tropical cyclone climatologists. He concluded that hurricanes should not be the “poster” representing a human influence on climate.

After his talk someone in the audience asked him what is wrong with making a connection between hurricanes and climate change if it gives the general public reason for concern about climate change. Chris responded that asserting such a connection can be easily shown to be incorrect and thus risks some of the trust that the public has in scientists to play things straight….

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

……The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author – Dr. Kevin Trenberth – to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small….

Some ‘scientist’ have made it clear that “to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…. we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements

From Dr Stephen Schneider, of Stanford University. Schneider was a coming ice age proponent in the 1970s
~ On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. ~

In other words we are being intentionally LIED TO for political reasons.

Heck the IPCC was never about the climate in the first place. The IPCC mandate is not to figure out what factors effect the climate but to dig up the facts needed to scare humans. Humans were tried and found guilty BEFORE the IPCC ever looked at a scientific fact. I do not care if you are socialist, capitalist or any other flavor, the fact that the UN, a collection of dictators is holding conferences on “Global Governance” and also putting together something like the IPCC and the Earth Summits to convince us into handing THEM control is what is REALLY SCARY.
The IPCC mandate states:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

Wow. Based on the poll, the correct answer is “neither one.” So not attributing any particular weather event to climate change is a false statement, and so is attributing a weather event to climate change. Now I’m confused.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The question is “Who do you believe”? I do not believe either man since they are both liars.

I will go do the research on the question and make up my own mind, not be fed pablum by blithering idiots.

Trying to separate the Left’s science guys from Bill Nye to Phil Jones may allow one a bit of feeling superior but, after how many years, now, has their “science” ranged from creakity faulty
to absurb lies? Yet, how many windmills are being built? How many solar panels being built? How many gallons on non-existant bio-fuel mash is poured into your gas tank? And the list goes on and on. Gore’s half way to being a billionaire and will likely make it. Simply put, there’s been an incredibly enormous waste of resources, bogus redirection of capital and a set crushing regulations and laws with the US Congress set to fight over how many billions to shovel into the abyss.

Reviewing this and the prior post on Heartland, it’s clear what one must consider simply huge percentages of Western voters will continue the march. It certainly won’t be the science guys that debate the science that finally halts this madness. What is happening is their solutions simply do not work. Even the Brits seem to understand that as their pensioners ride rails to keep warm since not even wool blankets over coats over sweaters over outer wear over long under ware and bunny boots (I’ve been to the UK – a miserably cold place in winter) allow them to stay home. But even they are fighting a huge fight over using their own natural gas as we watch the latest north winds sweep their nation(s).

One may have to reconcile that it won’t be ‘the opposition” that carries the day back to sanity but rather the collapse of their schemes. Even then, however, unless the Left is put into the same box as proponents of the superiority of the Aryan Race, it won’t make much difference. You can fight the climate wars and win but they just go on.

David Rockefeller, George Soros, Peter Sutherland, BP and Goldman Sachs chairman and a ton of others.
And those who did not go to school there are visiting lecturers such as Bill Clinton, Pascal Lamy (WTO) Tony Blair,

…The students come because of the other students, to hook themselves into the network that their university provides.

This is where the LSE really stands out. Its student body makes it vastly different from other universities, not just in the UK but in the world. It has consistently recruited some of the smartest, most interesting, intelligent, rich, successful and all-round attractive people on the planet, the movers and shakers of the future, the cosmocrats.

As an LSE student, you are a part of this extraordinary group. This is the pool from which you draw your friends and lovers…..

Is it politically incorrect to give Obama any credit at WUWT? I suspect that Anthony knew very well from the outset the result of his poll. By giving his mainly Republican readers the option to choose “neither” to the rather vague question “who[m!] do you believe?” he gave them the cop-out answer to say that politicians are not to be believed by definition, hence “neither”. If the question would have been phrased “whose statement was the most believable?” 99% of his readers would have been forced to agree with Obama. Wouldn’t that be hilarious?
ps. I am a global warming sceptic and politically from the right wing which would make me (here in Europe) essentially a Democrate. Only the extreme right is Europe would have any affinity for the Republicans.

Is it politically incorrect to give Obama any credit at WUWT? I suspect that Anthony knew very well from the outset the result of his poll…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Many of us knew what the rest of the paragraph was that Obama’s quote came from.

“The politician is a type of creature known for its propensity to lie, exaggerate, embellish, and use all kinds of hysterical or bombastic attention-getting.” ~ Rick Gaber

If Gore finds out about this poll, he’ll probably unleash one of his Gorebot minions to write a script to automatically vote for the Gore quote. His minions haven’t had much to do since the 24 hour Gorethon concluded.

The people who post here are the greatest !
When I first looked at this I said it is a trick like
“have you stopped beating you wife”.
The posts here should be required reading before voting.
Thank you Anthony !
Alfred

Although I am a USA citizen from birth, I have never been a USA Republican Party supporter and I am a long time denizen of WUWT.

I might point out that I doubt that any of the large contingent of international WUWT folks are of the USA Republican Party.

As to your argument about politics in Europe that imply less craziness than in the USA, well it does seen that since early in the 20th century till present it was European politics which had the effect of causing several worldwide scoped military type devastations . . . n’est ce pas?

Out of curiosity, what were the FCC assigned CALL LETTERS of said station? Where was it located?

(PS and on the QT to all others reading: Algore sold (ostensibly) a content-generating network, not a ‘station’ … Mike may just not have grasped that at the time and therefore seems to be propagating this error forward …),

You cite some really, really credible sources there ma’am; how many of them would you reckon would stand up against a strong and complete ‘cross’ examination in light of actual facts?”

You say Quigley was a liar?
3 part interview with Quigley
Mentions a continuum of secret societies.
Quigley was a professor of Bill Clinton. He was sympathetic to the hidden agendas of American foundations he documented in his book Tragedy And Hope.

“~ On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.~”

which is commented by Gail Combs as alleged evidence for the accusation that Stephen Schneider promoted to be untruthful for non-scientific motives:

In other words we are being intentionally LIED TO for political reasons.

However, the above quote is a forged version, from which essential parts that are important for the message have been deliberately stripped. This is the original statement by Stephen Schneider:

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
(J. Schell, Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989. cited after Stephen H. Schneider, Don’t Bet All Environmental Changes Will Be Beneficial, APS News, 1996, 5(8), http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf)

With the full quote it becomes clear that Stephen Schneider did not promote lying. Instead, he addressed the difficulty one has as a scientist and human being to convey results from scientific research, which may have societal consequences, in an effective way to the public through the media, which do not provide much space for a nuanced argument. He speaks about a “double ethical bind”, and he makes clear that his desire is to be both effective and honest. This quote demonstrates that Stephen Schneider was thinking about such problems. It’s a good thing to be reflective about these kind of problems, not a bad thing.

The brazenness is particularly stunning in this case, since the original quote can actually be found under the link that is provided by Gail Combs. Nevertheless, a distorted version is given here.

It is not Stephen Schneider who promoted that climate scientists should be lying. Instead, it’s fake skeptics who are lying when they use distorted quotes to defame climate scientists and make libelous accusations about them. Forged versions of the Stephen Schneider quote with the according misrepresentation of its content can be found all over the “skeptic” blogosphere. What does this say about the honesty of such “skeptics” in general?

Looking at the website and listening to soundbites provided at CFACT.org, I have come to the conclusion that those people are not in the business of accurately reporting about science. They are not friends of truth and facts. It’s apparently politically and ideologically motivated Agit-Prop of a lobby organization.

“Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
With the full quote it becomes clear that Stephen Schneider did not promote lying. “

Sometimes, the brazenness with which “skeptics” forge quotes and lie is still stunning to me. Take this alleged quote by Stephen Schneider, which is provided here by Gail Combs on February 10, 2013 at 3:56 am
———————————————-
Congratz Jan, you’re the proud winner of the ‘stupidest argument I’ve heard all week’ award!

I mean, really! Do you think by stuffing fingers in your ears and waving you arms you can cause anybody here to doubt the message Schneider was clearly conveying? Do you even believe your own lame argument?

Far from obscuring the matter, Gail’s revision clarified the main points. Clearly in your case it needs to be simplified further, since apparently you’re getting confused by the supporting details. Let me lay it out for you in small chunks and see if you can keep up:

1) Schneider notes ‘on the one hand’ that ethical scientific behavior is to speak the scientific findings and nothing more, with full qualifications and uncertainties.
2) Schneider notes ‘on the other hand’ that offering up scary scenarios, simplifying and dramatizing the findings, and pretending certainty with the media is the way to motivate broad based support and capture the public’s imagination.
Ergo – To be an effective activist contradicts ethical scientific behavior. This is the main point Schneider is making. Once you’ve fully digested this simple point, you’ll be in a position to rationally examine the remaining meaning in Schneider’s statement.

Please don’t hesitate to let me know if I can be of further service in explaining what words mean to you in the future.

Perlwitz is trying to defend the indefensible: Schneider’s tacit permission to the alarmist crowd to lie when they do not have the facts on their side. From his comment, I see that Perlwitz has taken Schneider’s advice:

… I have come to the conclusion that those people are not in the business of accurately reporting about science. They are not friends of truth and facts. It’s apparently politically and ideologically motivated Agit-Prop of a lobby organization.

As I’ve frequently pointed out, if it were not for psychological projection, Perlwitz wouldn’t have much to say. Here, Perlwitz is accusing a skeptical organization of doing exactly what RealClimate, SkS, and similar alarmist blogs do: lie to thew public, as Schneider advised.

Perlwitz is trying to defend the indefensible: Schneider’s tacit permission to the alarmist crowd to lie when they do not have the facts on their side.

You are the one who is lying. He did not say such a thing. This is a malicious interpretation of what Stephen Schneider said, and what I said. Something is read into a text, what is not being said, because you want it that way. What else is new here.

Skeptics, generally (there are always going to be outliers) insist that proper scientific rigor is demonstrated, evidence is shown, and conclusions are, at the very least, credible.

Actually, you are right. That is what true skeptics do. Unlike to what one can study here how the likes of you, the fake skeptic crowd behaves, usually, which prefers distorting quotes and misrepresenting what climate scientists actually say.

Mindert Eiting says:
February 10, 2013 at 10:44 am
“Chris, Dirk, and John, this is so funny: I am a global warming sceptic and politically from the moderate (Dutch) left, which would make me in the USA essentially a Communist. ”

The definition of communist is internationally agreed upon I think. (You want a global socialist state with the expropriation of all means of production; later (magically) the socialist state dissolves and communism without any government takes its place.) If you think that that makes sense then you’re a communist, otherwise not.

It’s the definition of conservatism in Germany that is flakey – the CDU is indistinguishable from the Green party.

2) Schneider notes ‘on the other hand’ that offering up scary scenarios, simplifying and dramatizing the findings, and pretending certainty with the media is the way to motivate broad based support and capture the public’s imagination.
Ergo – To be an effective activist contradicts ethical scientific behavior.

Hurricane Sandy is a disturbing sign of things to come.
============
Gore is correct. The misleading hype over Sandy is a disturbing sign of things to come. What we are going to see is more and more politicians blaming their failure to plan for storms on the “global warming” bogey man.

So, when a storm does hundreds of millions of dollars in damage because the politicians failed to keep the infrastructure maintained, it isn’t the politicians that are to blame. It is the rest of us that are at fault for heating our houses and driving to work.

We should be heating our houses in the winter with solar panels and traveling to work in the all electric trains and buses that politicians promise us will appear any day now. All paid for by a carbon tax on the oil that no one will be using once we switch over to electric trains and buses.

And the debt that keeps piling up? Those same politicians that are worried about the effects of global warming on the children? They don’t seem the least bit concerned with selling the children into indentured servitude as more and more of their paychecks are eaten up in servicing the interest on the debt, and less and less for actual government services.

defends the providing of a forged quote, from which the context was stripped, and he supports the malicious reinterpretation of what the quote said, although the full quote including the stripped parts make clear that the quotes says actually something else.

He then posted the same quote with a few additional sentences which – in fact – clarified that the point made by Gail Combs was correct.

Then he even defends the forging of quotes with an absurd analogy:

So, I suppose in the world of Perlw1tz a $10 bill is a forgery when a small piece of its corner is missing and it is a lie to say it is worth $10 when put into a bank.

As if the full context of a statement didn’t matter for the understanding of quote fragments.

No surprise here. Mr. Courtney is a “skeptic” activist who is actively making propaganda against research and their results in climate science, and he tries to sabotage research in climate science through political channels. One could suspect the motivation for his doing comes from his professional connections to the coal industry.

There is no statement by me, in which I have condoned lying. You show once more a major failure of logic, Stealey. When I defend Stephen Schneider against the false accusation to have condoned lying, with the argument that a statement by him is maliciously forged and misinterpreted, I am certainly not condoning lying.

… liars believe that everyone else lies, too.

Ah, is this the reason why you believe that thousands of climate scientists all over the world are lying, when they accept the paradigm of anthropogenically caused climate change and global warming in their publications or public statements, and why you believe that all major scientific organizations and academies all over the world acknowledge the validity of the results from scientific research about anthropogenically caused climate change and global warming and why you believe in an omnipotent, global conspiracy of liars that allegedly promoted an AGW hoax? Yes, it’s plausible that this could be the reason.

Perlwitz continues to amuse, and he is digging his hole ever deeper by pretending that Schneider was not condoning lying for the cause. Of course he was, only a blinkered idiot would believ otherwise… or someone lying on Schneider’s level.

I note that Perlwitz has no support for his fantastic claims. Readers and commenters are not stupid. They know exactly what Schneider meant. So does Perlwitz, but he refuses to admit to the truth. Because if he did admit to the truth, his whole globaloney CAGW narrative would collapse. As it is, there is zero measurable scientific evidence supporting even AGW — much less the preposterous CAGW nonsense.

openly endorses forging quotes so that “skeptics” can reinterpret them to give them a meaning “skeptics” would like to give them:

Far from obscuring the matter, Gail’s revision clarified the main points. Clearly in your case it needs to be simplified further, since apparently you’re getting confused by the supporting details.

This is a seldom open admission that it was OK to forge quotes for propaganda purposes, coming from a fake skeptic.
—————————————————————————-
And the conversation continues to deteriorate…
Being unable to address the substance of my post in any way shape or form, this pathetic troll comes back with yet another unfounded distortion.
Jan, you’re being boring. Here I was looking forward to an interesting debate. Couldn’t you step up your game a bit? My kids argue a better case than you for Pete’s sake.

Gore cleverly didn’t say that Hurricane Sandy was caused by global warming. He said it is a sign of what is to come. And signs aren’t the real thing, they are indicators, just as the sign of a steep hill ahead isn’t the steep hill ahead.

Bit of a game here. The Heartland again goes for the theatrics, not the logic or science or even the “truth” (in that the quote doesn’t attribute Sandy TO global warming, just a “sign”, however he is implying that connection. Which he is doing. Two wrongs, and all that.)

The Heartland has been clear about fighting fire with fire, ad hominem with ad hominem. The ad puts the belief of science into the belief of an individual, a fallback to the credibility of authority. The Heartland did not speak for me in the Unabomber fiasco, and doesn’t speak for me now.

I want very much to win this debate, but not by becoming the type of people who are on the other side. The Heartland may not feel this to be much of a concern because, other than what they believe, they are the same as the those on the other side.

Jan P Perlwitz says:
February 10, 2013 at 1:58 pm
“Ah, is this the reason why you believe that thousands of climate scientists all over the world are lying, when they accept the paradigm of anthropogenically caused climate change and global warming in their publications or public statements, ”

The THEORY of CO2AGW has been promoted to a PARADIGM now? You’re delusional.

No, Stealey, I didn’t say just “scientists”, I said “climate scientists”. These are people who actually work and publish in peer reviewed specialist journals in the field. You probably would present as “scientist” anyone who claims to have got some science degree at some point in his/her life, in whatever field ever and whether he/she works as professional scientist or not, even if it is the dentist next door. Like it was done by a “skeptic” organization with the fraudulent Oregon Petition.

who are on the record as believing in the CO2=CAGW narrative.

I did not talk about a “CO2=CAGW” narrative. “CAGW” stands for “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”. I didn’t say anything about such a thing, and I don’t use this term. This term doesn’t appear anywhere in the IPCC Report, either. It’s a term that is used by “skeptics” for propaganda purposes.

For every 1,000 Perlwitz can name, I can name 10,000.

A 1:10 ratio?

The only challenge I would accept is one based on what I actually said, i.e, listing working and actually publishing climate scientists, based on publications in peer reviewed specialist journals of the field. For every one of those scientists I name who agrees with the paradigm of anthropogenically caused global warming from greenhouse gases, you have to name 10 other climate scientists who work and publish in the field and who have been documented to disagree with the paradigm that increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from anthropogenic emissions cause global warming.

Your despicable post at February 10, 2013 at 8:47 am erroneously claimed the honest lady Gail Combs had produced a “forgery” and “lied”. Well, those falsehoods could be expected from you because lies and smears are your ‘stock in trade’. But it is possible that there are onlookers who are not familiar with your egregious history and, therefore, I explained your lies in my post at February 10, 2013 at 12:45 pm where I ridiculed your disgraceful lies.

At February 10, 2013 at 1:38 pm you have claimed I was wrong and that Ms Combs did provide a forgery when she accurately quoted Schneider. She did not. For your information, this is how the Online Dictionary defines forgery.

Clearly, Ms Combs was honest and correct in what she wrote and she did NOT forge anything.

However, not content with your lies and smears of Ms Combs, you attempt to distract from my refutation of those lies and smears by concluding your post saying

No surprise here. Mr. Courtney is a “skeptic” activist who is actively making propaganda against research and their results in climate science, and he tries to sabotage research in climate science through political channels. One could suspect the motivation for his doing comes from his professional connections to the coal industry.

Politicians pay me for factual, referenced information and analysis. They have their own sources for propaganda.

I don’t attempt to “sabotage” anything. On the contrary, I promote high scientific standards. However, I recognise why you would think that is “sabotage”.

My “professional connections to the coal industry” ended when British Coal (BC) was closed in 1995 and, therefore, my job as Senior Material Scientist at BC’s Coal Research Establishment ceased to exist. Subsequently, I wrote on Clean Coal Technology as a part time Technical Editor of CoalTrans International which is the journal of the international coal trade. That job ended when the journal changed ownership in 2002 and the new publishers replaced all the employees of that journal with some of their own existing employees. So, decades in the past there may have been some possibility of suspicion that your smear was true, but only an idiot would claim I have “professional connections” to an industry which has sacked me twice and most recently over a decade ago.

The reality is that you are a GISS programmer who blogs, lies and smears in attempt to avoid explaining e.g. this.

2. You defended the forging of a quote as a legitimate “revision” of a statement. I am not going to honor such a propositon by engaging in a dialogue with you.

There are enough of the “skeptic” crowd here who are similar minded to you. Aren’t you satisfied when they give you confirmation?
—————————————————
Awww Jan. Don’t be like that.

Tell me, seriously this time. I mocked you because you deserved it, for putting forward a ridiculous argument, but it’s not credible that you hold a PhD and that you’re really unable to understand what Schneider was saying. You must therefore be making an argument that you don’t actually believe. What makes the puzzle harder is that nobody else on this thread believes it either. So, what are you up to?

Since you’re clearly not being honest with us in the first place, I doubt you’re going to tell me. Still, it would be rude of me to call for speculation without first giving you a chance to explain.

No one agrees with Perlwitz regarding his false claim that Stephen Schneider was not advocating lying for the alarmist cause — when everyone [except lonesome Perlwitz] can see that is exactly what Schneider was proposing. That Schneider quote has been posted and re-posted here and all over the internet for twenty years, with no one defending Schneider… until now, when Perlwitz wants folks to believe that White is Black, Ignorance is Strength, War is Peace, and that Schneider Didn’t Advocate Lying. All are equally preposterous

And Perlwitz emits the usual alarmist canard that Physicists, Chemists, Geologists, and others educated in the hard sciences cannot understand the debate. Only “climate scientists” can understand the science?? As if. All of us here understand too well the shenanigans that are going on: a false scare is being promoted, which has no verifiable, testable scientific evidence to support it. There are no measurements of “AGW”. None. It is all one giant head-fake, based on assertions that cannot be measured.

Now that we have gone sixteen [16] years without any global warming, these pseudo-scientists are forced to lie through their teeth to keep their false alarm alive. But the public is catching on, and the alarmists’ AGW scare tactics are being laughed at. Who still believes the nonsense that Perlwitz is asserting?

…Perlwitz wants folks to believe that White is Black, Ignorance is Strength, War is Peace, and that Schneider Didn’t Advocate Lying. All are equally preposterous…
————————————————————–
Okay, but isn’t it strange that he’s making such a feeble argument? He comes in here, looking to pick a fight using a laughable argument against Gail, and quickly gets sidetracked into arguing against peripheral details in people’s rebuttals. Heck, maybe he’s just bored and this is how he fills the time. Still, I tend to be suspicious when my opposition starts behaving stupidly.
~shrug~ well, whatever. Monday morning comes fast and furious; good night folks.

Tell me, seriously this time. I mocked you because you deserved it, for putting forward a ridiculous argument, but it’s not credible that you hold a PhD and that you’re really unable to understand what Schneider was saying.

I understand what Stephen Schneider said. He talked about an ethical dilemma, which one can face as a scientist. On one hand, to be committed to the highest scientific standards, on the other hand to convey results of research with important societal consequences to the public in an effective way, given the working of the media as they are. Stephen Schneider was reflecting about this. It is a virtue to be aware about these problems. He did not say scientists should be lying. On the contrary, he expressed his desire to be both effective and honest.

If you think I was dumb to think that is the correct interpretation, so be it, since it is was I think. It’s not an argument I don’t believe.

Gail Comb presented a forged version of the statement, which significantly distorted its meaning.

What do you propose what would be a valid criterion what interpretation of the statement is the correct one? We don’t need to ask Stephen Schneider. Even if he was still alive we already know what he said about it. And the “skeptic” crowd clearly dismisses what he said about it right away, since the preconception among “skeptics” is he was lying like most climate scientists allegedly were, anyway. So, what else?

The context of Schneider’s statement is well explained by his behaviour from the date of said quote to his death.
Ample evidence to me, that Jan is blowing smoke.
Course he could believe it, as a common trait of serial liars, is believing their own BS.
Lies being difficult to keep track of, and hard to reference.
Truth seems to work so much more reliably over time.

“The assertions of Jan P Perlw1tz get progressively more bizarre with each post he makes.”

And Mark Bofill says:

“…the conversation continues to deteriorate…
Being unable to address the substance of my post in any way shape or form, this pathetic troll comes back with yet another unfounded distortion.
Jan, you’re being boring. Here I was looking forward to an interesting debate. Couldn’t you step up your game a bit? My kids argue a better case than you for Pete’s sake…. I mocked you because you deserved it, for putting forward a ridiculous argument, but it’s not credible that you hold a PhD and that you’re really unable to understand what Schneider was saying… Okay, but isn’t it strange that he’s making such a feeble argument? He comes in here, looking to pick a fight using a laughable argument against Gail, and quickly gets sidetracked into arguing against peripheral details in people’s rebuttals.”

And DirkH says:

“The THEORY of CO2AGW has been promoted to a PARADIGM now? You’re delusional.”

And Code Tech says:

“Perlwitz, why did you misquote me, then agree with what I actually said? That didn’t make sense…”

Nobody agrees with Perlwitz. I can’t believe that he misunderstands either Schneider’s statement so completely. He has completely reversed Schneider’s meaning. Can he really be that delusional?

I doubt it. I think Perlwitz has repeated his unsupportable assertions so often that he cannot renege on them now without forfeiting credibility — which would make him ineffective. Therefore, Perlwitz owns his alarmist catastrophic AGW position. He would rather make things up, than refute what he has repeatedly asserted.

It is that same choice between being honest, or being effective. Perlwitz can be honest, or he can be effective. He cannot be both. Perlwitz obviously believes that his false assertions are effective enough to jettison honesty. He has made the choice offered by Stephen Schneider. Now we know what that choice is.

The context of Schneider’s statement is well explained by his behaviour from the date of said quote to his death.
Ample evidence to me, that Jan is blowing smoke.
Course he could believe it, as a common trait of serial liars, is believing their own BS.
Lies being difficult to keep track of, and hard to reference.
Truth seems to work so much more reliably over time.

So, show me what the truth was, which you allege. This should be easy for you then. Please, give me specifics about the behavior of Stephen Schneider after the interview, which confirm the, in my opinion malicious interpretation of his statement, according to which he promoted that scientists should be lying. Specifics that are actually based on verifiable evidence, not just copy-paste of assertions from some fake skeptic blogs.

The THEORY of CO2AGW has been promoted to a PARADIGM now? You’re delusional.

Am I? Tell me, what would you accept as evidence for the validity of the statement that increasing greenhouse gase mixing ratio in the atmosphere from anthropogenic emissions caused global warming was a paradigm among working and publishing climate scientists?

Stealey tried to trap me with a challenge regarding this question. And now he already seems to have chickened out. What about you? Are you willing to take the challenge, instead? Since you think I was “delusional” you must be quite certain in your belief about this issue.

Clearly, Ms Combs was honest and correct in what she wrote and she did NOT forge anything.

The original quote by Stephen Schneider was:

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
(J. Schell, Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989. cited after Stephen H. Schneider, Don’t Bet All Environmental Changes Will Be Beneficial, APS News, 1996, 5(8), http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf)

Gail Combs presented following alleged quote instead:

~ On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. ~”
(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221492)

The original quote has been clearly and deliberately changed here. It is not even marked where parts of the original quote have been cut out.

But Mr. Courtney claims this was “honest and correct” doing.

The irony is that “skeptics” do here exactly with the quote by Stephen Schneider, and Mr. Courtney and likes defend such doing, of what they accuse Stephen Schneider to allegedly have done.

I am replying to your silly and mendacious post at February 10, 2013 at 11:17 pm.

The facts are .
1.
(At February 10, 2013 at 3:56 am)
Gail Combs quoted Schneider verbatim and accurately summarised the quotation.
2.
(At February 10, 2013 at 8:47 am)
You lied that the quotation is a “forgery” and smeared Ms Combs.
3.
(February 10, 2013 at 12:45 pm)
Following others who objected to your nonsense, I explained that you had lied and smeared Ms Combs.
4.
(At February 10, 2013 at 1:38 pm)
You replied by repeating your lie and by adding lies and smears of me.
5.
(At February 10, 2013 at 5:25 pm)
I refuted all your lies and smears and I pointed out thatGISS employs you as a professional liar .
6.
(At February 10, 2013 at 11:17 pm)
You have responded (in the post I am answering) by repeating the lies and smears.

to be none. It’s all fine and good, nothing wrong with it, according to you, to re-arrange the words of someone else’s quote, to present the re-arranged words as the original quote and attribute the changed meaning to the original author of the quote. And the one who calls such quote manipulation what it actually is, is supposed to be the “liar”. In your little delusional “skeptic” fantasy world.

You should try such an approach when you finally defend your PdD thesis, in which you ultimately refute global warming, using your revolutionary analysis method called “eyeballing”. Have you started with writing your thesis already? Once you have finished them, and get it through the commission, even with manipulated quotes, about which you think that’s nothing to worry about, then you even can call yourself legitimately “Dr. Courtney”.

Well, it’s all documented in this thread here now. How an original quote by Stephen Schneider is being manipulated by fake skeptics by erasing parts of the quote without marking it and re-arranging the remaining parts, so that they can give the statement the meaning they want it to have. And how such doing is defended by Mr. Courtney and by others here as a totally legitimate approach. You have exposed yourself, Mr. Courtney. And it is documented now.

I hope people get to see this, before they deal with Mr. Courtney professionally. If they have to rely on what Mr. Courtney writes, they should know what he thinks about quote manipulation.

Well, I guess Mr. Courtney is going to send now another recursive reply, in which he calls me once more a liar, because I call malicious quote manipulation what it is. It doesn’t change a thing.

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

That was in a 1988 interview with Discover magazine.

UPDATE: I’ve tracked down the source via ClimateSight

The Detroit News selectively cut out parts of the above quote, publishing the following:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

And, from there. It spread, as do many things the mass media pushes. Gail Combs didn’t fabricate it. There’s only one instance of the original, thousands of instances of the Detroit News version. That became the “truth” as found on the Internet.

This is why when Hansen says something stupid and unsupportable, like his famous “coal death trains” quote, it get spread far and wide by the MSM, and the skeptic voice hardly gets a word in edgewise.

Perlwitz is whining about this instance, where Schnieder said something stupid, and it got legs in a reduced form. I’m not terribly sympathetic, since climate scientists really should learn not to say such things that get them in trouble when talking to the media.

No one agrees with Perlwitz regarding his false claim that Stephen Schneider was not advocating lying for the alarmist cause — when everyone [except lonesome Perlwitz] can see that is exactly what Schneider was proposing. That Schneider quote has been posted and re-posted here and all over the internet for twenty years, with no one defending Schneider… until now, when Perlwitz wants folks to believe that White is Black, Ignorance is Strength, War is Peace, and that Schneider Didn’t Advocate Lying. All are equally preposterous

Really, Stealey. Is this what you need to reassure yourself that you were on the right side. To tell yourself that you were right because “no one agrees” with me and “no one” had been defending Stephen Schneider for the last twenty years, except for me. Well, good for you. I just don’t care about your appeal to majority fallacy.

And Perlwitz emits the usual alarmist canard that Physicists, Chemists, Geologists, and others educated in the hard sciences cannot understand the debate. Only “climate scientists” can understand the science??

I did not say that. Everyone can get him/herself sufficiently educated, in principal, given sufficient IQ, to understand issues of climate science. However, this doesn’t make everyone equally qualified to be considered an expert in the field. But you seem to think differently. I guess you also go to your dentist then, when you have a heart problem. After all, you must believe dentists know equally much about cardio problems as cardiologists, the ones who are specially trained and work in the field.

But the real point was another one. It is related to your previous statement,

… liars believe that everyone else lies, too.

which I countered with the question whether this was the reason why you think that thousands of climate scientists were lying etc.

Here, you reiterate your view:

There are no measurements of “AGW”. None. It is all one giant head-fake, based on assertions that cannot be measured.

So, you claim that most climate scientists from all over the world are lying, when they agree with the paradigm that greenhouse gases from anthropogenic emissions cause global warming. And all the scientific organizations and academies from all over the world, which agree with that there was AGW. And the editorial boards of the specialist journals in the field. And you believe there was an omnipotent, vast global conspiracy of liars who are proponents of an “AGW hoax”. Right?

So, either you admit to that most climate scientists say AGW was real, and you believe they were all liars, or it should be easy for you to take the challenge. For every climate scientist who works and publishes in the field and who agrees with the AGW paradigm, and this is documented, you present 10 climate scientists who work and publish in the field, but disagree with the explanation that greenhouse gases from anthropogenic emissions cause global warming, and this is documented as well.

I am willing to agree to an ease of the challenge for you. It doesn’t have to be the proportion you originally proposed. What about a 1:1 proportion?

But you seem to have already chickened out. Are there any other takers among the “skeptic” crowd here?

I assume your shovel must be getting blunt so I am willing to offer you another one to assist you to keep digging. It really is good to see your hole getting deeper and I wish to assist you in every possible way.

I know of no other person so deserving of the self-revelation which you are providing in this thread.

However, I would appreciate your answer to a question although – of course – any answer you provide is likely to be a falsehood. You post on WUWT during the time of your employment at GISS.

Does GISS pay you for the number of posts you make on WUWT or do they pay you per lie?

I understand what Stephen Schneider said. He talked about an ethical dilemma, which one can face as a scientist. On one hand, to be committed to the highest scientific standards, on the other hand to convey results of research with important societal consequences to the public in an effective way, given the working of the media as they are. Stephen Schneider was reflecting about this. It is a virtue to be aware about these problems. He did not say scientists should be lying. On the contrary, he expressed his desire to be both effective and honest.

—————

Yes Jan, he talked about an ethical dilemma. Why should there be an ethical dilemma between being ‘committed to the highest scientific standards’ and ‘conveying the results of research to the public in an effective way’? What part of ‘conveying the results of research to the public in an effective way’ do you think Schneider felt is in conflict with ethical scientific behavior? Why is it in conflict with ethical scientific behavior?

I know, you can’t bring yourself to say it. Clearly, you know the answer because you are so doggedly omitting it every time you rehash what Schneider said in your own words; you couldn’t avoid it that thoroughly unless you understood the significance.

Let’s try approaching the problem a different way.

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

What does it mean when someone makes a statement using the idioms ‘on the one hand’ ‘on the other hand’? Well, the American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms gives us this:

“Also, on one hand. As one point of view, from one standpoint. This phrase is often paired with on the other hand to indicate two sides of an issue. For example, On the one hand this car is expensive; on the other hand, it’s available and we need it right now.”

Two sides of an issue. On one side of the issue, we in effect promise ‘to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but’. So tell me Jan. What can we possibly understand about the other side of that issue, given that one side is characterized by telling ‘the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but’? Is the other side of the issue consistent with telling ‘the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but’?

—————

Gail Comb presented a forged version of the statement, which significantly distorted its meaning.

—————

Jan, when you make a statement like that it’s reasonable for people to expect that you’re going to support it. It’s evident to everyone here that Gail’s quote omitted a few supporting sentences which in no substantial way change the meaning of what Schneider was saying, with the possible exception of the last line. If you disagree with this, the burden is on you to explain in detail how omitting these supporting sentences distort the meaning.

Finally, you are attacking straw men if you believe Gail said ‘Schneider openly said scientists should lie.’. Obviously nobody believes that’s what Schneider meant to blatantly convey. Schneider took it as a given, as a basic premise he didn’t question, that ‘potentially disastrous climatic change’ was in the cards and that activism BY SCIENTISTS was ethically required to combat it. This was his first fundamental error. In my opinion, scientists have no business engaging in activism, for exactly the reasons Schneider noted earlier. You can quibble about it all you want, but scientific activism of the sort Schneider is describing is nothing more than lying to manipulate people because you think you know better than they do.

—————

What do you propose would be a valid criterion what interpretation of the statement is the correct one? We don’t need to ask Stephen Schneider. Even if he was still alive we already know what he said about it. And the “skeptic” crowd clearly dismisses what he said about it right away, since the preconception among “skeptics” is he was lying like most climate scientists allegedly were, anyway. So, what else?

—————

If I could lay out a deterministic algorithm for understanding the meaning of human speech, I wouldn’t be spending my time discussing this with you, I’d be on a beach in the Carribean. I suggest that you rethink your notion that removing any portion of a quote distorts it’s meaning, since the most useful method I’m aware of for understanding speech is to reduce it to it’s essence, understand the core points, and then to understand the elaborations. I think your whole line of argument has been silly and frankly beneath you, and I don’t see the point in trying to establish a set of criteria by which we can validate an interpretation of words that’s plain to everybody but you.

You conclude your very fine post at February 11, 2013 at 7:18 am by saying to Jan P.

I think your whole line of argument has been silly and frankly beneath you, and I don’t see the point in trying to establish a set of criteria by which we can validate an interpretation of words that’s plain to everybody but you.

I have to disagree with you.

I agree that his “whole line of argument has been silly” but it is definitely NOT “beneath” him. His behaviour on this thread is his typical behaviour.

This is the third WUWT thread (and there may be others) where I have seen him deliberately misrepresent clear words then lie about and smear those who disagree with him while not making any substantive points in support of his misrepresentation. It is what he is employed to do.

It’s too bad Stephen Schneider isn’t around to tell climate scientists what he really meant. Apparently, many, according to Perlwitz anyway) completely misunderstood what he was really saying, and went ahead and did as they pleased, truth be damned. But, there was no moral struggle involved; just the very real need to keep the MMGW gravy train chugging along.

You conclude your very fine post at February 11, 2013 at 7:18 am by saying to Jan P.

I think your whole line of argument has been silly and frankly beneath you, and I don’t see the point in trying to establish a set of criteria by which we can validate an interpretation of words that’s plain to everybody but you.

I have to disagree with you.

I agree that his “whole line of argument has been silly” but it is definitely NOT “beneath” him. His behaviour on this thread is his typical behaviour.
——————————
Thanks Richard.

You may be correct. I can’t properly express how it dismays me though, to see a NASA PhD make this sort of argument. I don’t want it to be real. In this particular case, I probably am indeed indulging in a form of denial. But how far we have fallen! Dear God, to conclude that Dr. Perlwitz of NASA is either in need of remedial 10’th grade English or is deliberately promoting a point of view he knows to be false, when in our lifetimes NASA has achieved the scientific and technological miracles that it has!

Well, I’m probably generalizing too much. As Philip Shehan correctly pointed out to me in a slightly different context on earlier thread, it’s wrong for me to deduce by analogy that merely because Perlwitz appears to be a cockroach that NASA is therefore a nest of cockroaches. Still, the whole business is surreal in a very sickening and disturbing way.

So it turns out that Gail Combs simply posted a newspaper quote of Schneider’s, and she wasn’t fabricating anything. Time for Perlwitz to apologize, no?

Gail Combs’ quote left out Schneider’s choice between being ethical, and being unethical:

This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

You cannot be dishonest and honest at the same time. That is the kind of tap-dancing that Schneider did, and Perlwitz is doing the same kind of tap-dancing.

… I have seen him deliberately misrepresent clear words then lie about and smear those who disagree with him while not making any substantive points in support of his misrepresentation. It is what he is employed to do.

The false accusations toward me aside, if I was Courtney I would be careful to make this kind of assertions about the private university that employs me, since Courtney is unable to prove his assertion about the alleged fact to be true.

Everything I write here are my personal views, and I do not write here on behalf of any institution with which I am affiliated.

Jan P Perlwitz says:
February 12, 2013 at 6:01 am
…
The false accusations toward me aside, if I was Courtney I would be careful to make this kind of assertions about the private university that employs me, since Courtney is unable to prove his assertion about the alleged fact to be true.
————————————————————–
Still all bluster with no balls, I see. Are you having difficulty understanding the questions I asked you or the points I raised in my last post? As I’ve said, please don’t hesitate to ask if you need help. I’m looking forward to your response.

The false accusations toward me aside, if I was Courtney I would be careful to make this kind of assertions about the private university that employs me, since Courtney is unable to prove his assertion about the alleged fact to be true.

Everything I write here are my personal views, and I do not write here on behalf of any institution with which I am affiliated.

– – – – – – – –

Jan P Perlwitz,

Question for you about that comment.

Has Columbia University legal staff and/or your university department staff advised you to make that legal sounding disclaimer of Columbia University’s responsibility for the legal consequences of your extremely adversarial comments on this thread?

Of course, can’t you always contact Scott Mandia for legal aid from the UCS if Columbia University is displeased and unsupportive of your activities?

I am giving my honest opinion of Perlwitz, who has never challenged the perception that he is a putative public expert. I think he spends lots of his time writing blog posts during what most folks would call their work day. How is that possible? Does his boss concur with his blog writing activity? Is that what he is paid to do? Most universities accept public tax monies, but I doubt that those funds include paying someone to advocate for climate alarmism. Who is Perlwitz’ boss? I would like to ask him/her if writing blog posts at work is A-OK. I seriously doubt it. If I am wrong, I will certainly apologize.

Perlwitz lacks scientific facts, so he resorts to bluster. He has no verifiable evidence showing that CO2 causes global warming, or, if so, how much. He is winging it, and it appears to me that he is basing his alarmist propaganda on his belief system, and on his employment — but not on any scientific evidence.

Once again, let me point out that no one agrees with Perlwitz. For someone who presumably places his stock in the so-called scientific “consensus”, Perlwitz does not seem to care that he has no supporting consensus here of his own.

I see that Perlwitz is still writing his long blog comments during his workday.

“Long blog comments”? There is only one comment by me visible here from yesterday. Is this one, which you consider “long”?

Oh, right! There is the other comment by me, the longer one, which I had submitted before the shorter one. The longer one that has never been published here after I submitted it. How would you know about that one, then?

He needs to study up on ethics. I’m sure his employer is not paying him to post blog comments on company time.

My ethics are just fine. And you have no information whatsoever, based on which you could claim any knowledge about that I posted on “company time”, or on “taxpayer money”. You have made these kind of false accusations against me repeatedly in the past.

Perhaps you don’t get it, Stealey. I do not have a fixed work time, like 9 AM to 5 PM. I do not have to clock in. I can distribute my work over the day, over the week how I like it best. I can take breaks when I want, I can do something else when I want (well, except when we have some meeting scheduled.) to do something else. I can decide whether I work from home, or sitting in my lab. It’s the freedom I have in my line of work as a research scientist at a private university. It’s a nice trade off for the low pay in academia. And you are not entitled at all to impose on me during what time of the day I must work, and when I was allowed to do something else. If you don’t like that, suck it up. So, now I have told you that, and if you one more time make an accusation against me that I was doing something illegal, against the rules or similar, I am going to conclude that you state those false accusations with malicious intent.

I am giving my honest opinion of Perlwitz, who has never challenged the perception that he is a putative public expert. I think he spends lots of his time writing blog posts during what most folks would call their work day. How is that possible? Does his boss concur with his blog writing activity? Is that what he is paid to do? Most universities accept public tax monies, but I doubt that those funds include paying someone to advocate for climate alarmism. Who is Perlwitz’ boss? I would like to ask him/her if writing blog posts at work is A-OK. I seriously doubt it. If I am wrong, I will certainly apologize.

Perlwitz lacks scientific facts, so he resorts to bluster. He has no verifiable evidence showing that CO2 causes global warming, or, if so, how much. He is winging it, and it appears to me that he is basing his alarmist propaganda on his belief system, and on his employment — but not on any scientific evidence.

Once again, let me point out that no one agrees with Perlwitz. For someone who presumably places his stock in the so-called scientific “consensus”, Perlwitz does not seem to care that he has no supporting consensus here of his own.
———————————————————————-
Hi D.B.,

I’m tempted to join you in your speculations, since this appears to be the only way to get the troll to respond at this point, but I can’t honestly say I really much care if Perlwitz is doing this in his free time, or if he’s slacking off at work. Like I told Richard, I don’t really want to believe he’s getting paid to do this – but fortunately I don’t have to conclude that. After all, I post here and nobody’s paying me to do it.

No, I’d prefer to discuss the issues he raised in his attack on Gail’s post. Unlike Perlwitz apparently, I argue not only to express my point of view but to test it. Nothing is quite as good as an intelligent and motivated opponent for pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Since at the end of the day I hate being wrong, I’d prefer to have my mistakes uncovered so I can correct them.

No such luck, Perlwitz won’t answer my rebuttal. But since I can only conclude that he refuses to answer because he can’t, I guess he didn’t have anything useful to offer anyway.